It's Official: Obama is neither a socialist nor a communist

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sparky11point5, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
  2. D_Juan Tootree

    D_Juan Tootree <img border="0" src="/images/badges/member.gif" wi

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    3
    That did not prove whether or not Obama is a socialist/Marxist, it was simply another artice by a clearly left-wing website trying to depite conservative commentators in a negative way, thus trying to discredit what they are saying.

    I can only judge whether Obama's actions are socialist based on what I see him doing. I see this:

    1) Him and the government buying up a 35% stake in the ailing Citigroup (big step toward nationalization).

    2) Him trying to cap or set limits on corporate salaries (at $500,000 a year, as he clearly said) from businesses that have accepted government aid.

    3) Him using taxpayer money to pay other people's mortgages.

    4) Him giving tax returns to people who don't even pay taxes.

    Based on those 4 inconvenient truths, let alone countless other examples, i would have to say: Yes, it sounds like Obama is a socialist and possibly even a communist.
     
  3. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    well, frankly we have been a socialist nation for quite awhile now, we are just less socialist than many more socialist nations and not really entirely socialist, but we do subscribe to certain theories of it.

    i think the question begged is just how much more socialist is Obama in comparison to the relatively benign socialism of the USA in the past as compared to the more socialist European states of the past.

    Obviously, the real split is that Europe has been for awhile attempting to move further from the original socialist model, while Obama seems intent on moving the USA more towards it.

    i believe that goal is older European-style Social Democracy is more like it with a touch of collectivism.

    which i find rather unappealing as well.

    either way, I am for a very active government, though not one that is massive and overreaching which we have been heading towards for some time and we appear to have taken a giant step towards with the election of Mr. Obama.


    IMO
     
  4. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm so tired of these moronic, partisan accusations.

    Like hell he's a socialist.

    Regarding the bailout, true conservative capitalists AND socialists should be in agreement here.


    1. Capitalist argument - Recessions/depressions are part of the business cycle and are unavoidable. Halt the bailout which serves no purpose other than to make it worse.

    2. Socialist's argument - NOTHING redistributes wealth and closes the gap between rich and poor as good as a good ole' fashioned depression!

    I am welcoming the recession/depression. Once the market bottoms out and we start to recover however many years from now, it's pretty automatic that anyone who invests in the stock market at that time will get pretty rich pretty fast. Imagine where you'd be at today having bought RCA stock during the 30s.
     
  5. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    539
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    Man... Am I ever glad my satellite service dropped Fox "News" about four years ago. I've never seen this Beck guy before. What an ass. He has no salient point to make, he's rude to his guest, he asks a question and interrupts before the guest gets three words out of his mouth. Do Americans actually watch this shit?
     
  6. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately yes, but I expect the populace to turn against these talking heads on both the left and right. They have everyone here so screwed up, thinking that we can avoid a natural and necessary part of the market cycle.
     
  7. B_Hickboy

    B_Hickboy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    10,730
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    That twinge in your intestines
    I think the government needs to do whatever works, and that right quick, and leave the "isms" to assholes who have nothing better to do with their time than to spend it hanging labels on everything and everybody.
     
  8. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only thing that will work is to halt the continuous debt cycle that is killing us, and let the market correct itself. Has anyone actually stopped to think that maybe....these horribly mismanaged banks and companies that are failing DESERVE to fail?

    Under a capitalist system, they should fail, and private capital should lead the way to the formation of new banks.

    But nooooo Obama et al wants to preserve the wealth of that top 1% at all costs.

    Those of us that work for a living are fucked. Regardless whether the bailout stabilizes the banks or not. Expect to see tax rates and prices of goods so high your head will spin to pay for all this.

    But...so long as those wall street execs still have their jobs at the end of the day, that's all that matters right? Oh yeah and their bonuses....even though there is a bonus cap the executives got around that by not calling them bonuses anymore but now call them "retention awards". They are STILL getting carribean cruises and multimillion dollar bonuses to this day! Thanks Obama! Way to go!
     
  9. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,454
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    50
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Dawwwww, and to think you only have 3.9 more years of it. Payback is a bitch...as I guess you thought Bush could do no right, either.


    Funking prophetic... you are financial genius. RCA hasn't existed for over 20 years... bought up and then split up by GE. GE who was a $1 in 1965 (split adjusted, or lack thereof), and sits around $6 now. Woohoo.

    What else have ya got for us, ol' blue horseshoe?
     
  10. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Huh? Why do you assume I'm a Bush supporter? Just because I don't like socialism doesn't mean I think fascism is an alternative.

    You seem to be stuck in this right/left funk like all the others.

    Also, I don't know what history book you are reading, but RCA has been around a very long time. In the 20s RCA's share price peaked at around $450 per share, and dropped below 30 during the depression. Investors who put money into it at that stage were handsomely rewarded.


     
  11. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    539
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    Doesn't give much comfort to the 65 year olds who have worked all their lives, saved and invested, and now their 401K's are 101K's, does it?

    Too many asinine know nothing, never-had-a-real job, talking heads on TV, have been dispensing bullshit advice for years to suckers who believe whatever they hear or read in the media which reinforces their world view. Whether it's political or economic, right or left, people need think for themselves for a change. I'm afraid it's nigh on impossible though... Four generations have been spoon fed by electronic media and there is likely no going back.

    Right... It's all about payback isn't it? I win, you lose. I'm on top and you're fucked.

    Turn off the frickin' TV.
     
    #11 vince, Mar 6, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2009
  12. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah it sucks not only for the 65 year olds, but all of us, but it is what it is. What can we do though? Our choices are either ride it out or scrap our current system and replace with a real socialistic system where the government owns all the means of production. Borrowing more money to bail out an economy that is on the brink because of too much debt in the first place though isn't the answer. (Sorry Bush, Cheney, and yes, Obama you are in this group too, but contrary to what you say, DEBT DOES MATTER!)

    Fact is things suck for a lot of people most of the time, even during economic booms you are going to have poverty, oppression, etc. So the anecdotal little old lady story is going to do little to sway me.

    I agree with you as far as turning off the TV and silencing the talking heads. Now every ignorant fool thinks a few minutes of watching a 24 hour cable news channel somehow qualifies as an education.

    I don't care what Cavuto, O'Reilly, Cramer, Dobbs, Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter, etc etc say. Why don't you tell me what Hayek, Smith, Malthus, Marx, von Mises, Keynes said instead.

    EVERYONE should read the works of Marx and Engels as well as Frederick von Hayek. That's a good, intelligent, introduction to both ends of the capitalist/socialist debate and will do more for your understanding than 50 years of television watching.

    You will also be able to easily cut through the political rhetoric being spouted on both sides of the isle. And see that both systems are just as bad, but for completely opposite reasons. Then maybe we can cast off the useless right/left debate and work on an alternative....

    Enter ParaEcon, or if that's too utopian for ya, how about Economic Democracy? Both are valid hybrid alternatives that take the best of both systems and cast off the worst and stand up to economic criticism.



     
    #12 javyn, Mar 6, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2009
  13. pym

    pym New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    :fart::fart::fart::fart::fart:
     
  14. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    well, in all fairness vince, i agree with you about the poisonous/payback nature of politics these days, most obviously between the far left and far right.

    But you cannot simply appeal for one side to stop when they are out of power. I do not agree with the policies of the far right, anymore then i do of the far left, but democrats and republicans both have the responsibility of representing their constituents...hopefully with simple reason, which is all out the window since it is about reason, politics, and now a whole lot of venom.

    the democrats absolutely had the right and the important job to oppose Bush during the 6 years of total control by the republicans and now the situation is reversed.

    the difference now, is that the poison is directed at those in charge now who were the ones directing the poison at those formerly in charge.

    It is always the case most especially in the House but to a lesser degree the Senate, that when one side regains power they invariably take retribution against the other for perceived or real wrongs they suffered during their time out of power . It is ugly but it occurs on both sides, mainly from the extreme wings.

    as for Obama and the poison directed at him, it really is not fair to take issue with the far right over it, unless you are prepared to take issue with the venom directed at Bush by the far left.

    Frankly, as bad a President as Bush was, some of the venom and viciousness i have seen directed at him was just mind bogglingly evil. Clinton suffered the same prior to that.

    Before that Bush 1 was not treated nearly as viciously and neither was Reagan or Carter. Yes, there was dissent and disagreement to very serious degree, but the poisoned chalice of negative politics by the far right and far left that has occurred over the previous 16 years will not abate.

    I saw Ben Affleck on Bill Maher (in passing, as i hate that show just about as much as Rush Limbaugh, though it does have much funnier and better writers)

    and he was saying passionately "enough with the ugliness"...i just found it strange that he was only saying that once Obama had won and is president but not while Bush was in office.

    if you are on either extreme, right or left, you cannot spew the poison then wonder why it comes back at you, and call it off after 8 years of utter viciousness.

    It would be nice if that poison did not exist, but it does and now it is Obama's turn to suffer the vengeance of the Far right (rightly or wrongly) for what they perceived to be the poison that the Far left threw at Bush and before that the Far Left saw the Far right throw at Clinton.

    The ironic thing, (or maybe not that ironic) was that Bush 1 and Clinton were rather moderate figures poltically.

    Clinton himself was not that polarizing politically, but his personal failings, drove the Far Right ballistic. To be frank, i do not care what Clinton did or who he screwed, but how naive do you have to be in that situation, to not know what would happen if you behaved like that in these modern salacious times? They hated him anyway, and he handed them a blowtorch to use and then gave them a a drum of gasoline.

    Either way, the extreme polarity and venom really began with the far right and far left, in the early 90s...Gingrich, Lott and Limbaugh vs. Hillary Clinton and Carville their ilk and by extension Bill, when he was the least extreme of all of them.

    predictably, once a far right candidate won after that era (W.) it was open season on him, compounded by many of his poor policies.

    Now we have another extreme, the polar opposite from the far right Bush, we have the far left Obama.

    and the knives are out from the Far right.

    this is the state of being on one extreme or the other, and it wont stop, sadly.

    the polarity has become so ugly and divisive, it is impossible for the far left and far right to agree on just about anything. They spend all their time insulting each other, defending indefensible positions and ignoring everyone else.

    that is the nature of things now and it is not changing since neither the far right or far left is going to give up their ideology one iota.

    unfortunately.

    IMO
     
  15. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    The US government has taken an equity stake in companies on and off, since railroad expansion in the 1850s. This is not a necessary or sufficient condition of socialism.

    OK, perhaps a populist move. But, as a taxpayer, do you want equity investments to flow out of the banks?

    Essentially, we do this through deductible interest on home mortgages anyway, which is popular despite the fact that it is regressive (i.e., it helps the wealthy disproportionately since they only multiple and more expensive homes, which generate larger deductions.)

    We will pay one way or the other -- either through the banks or through the homeowners. Do you prefer bailing out the banks or people?

    Argh. Many people get tax credits. This was an attempt to help people who AGI was low enough to not pay federal income tax. These people do pay some state taxes usually, plus sales and wage taxes. Furthermore, these credits are the most 'stimulative' of any part of the package. Essentially, these people have to spend it, so it will go back into the economy much faster than other aspects of the package.

    This is progressive tax policy, not socialist, and has been in place since 1912.

    No. But, then again, this discussion is not about facts, huh?
     
  16. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    I agree on most of what you said in the previous post except would slightly disagree only with this one point you made, sparky.

    while indeed it is regressive to a degree, these multiple homes and more expensive homes also generate more income both for businesses (in terms of the construction,design, maintenance/upkeep, surrounding property value) and counties/cities (property taxes on larger more expensive homes) which i would say alleviates and ultimately in the long run far outstrips any regression from the deduction itself. (also much of depends how long the mortgage is for etc.)

    the CEO (just for example) who has an apartment in New York City, but then buys property in and builds a 3 million dollar summer home in Long Island (or Jersey, or connecticut etc.) ultimately offers more in the long run economically.

    IMO.
     
  17. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    539
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    Why is it that the only opinions we hear on the tube are those of the extreme right or left? Well maybe not the only ones... But volume seems drown out thoughtful discourse these days. I think people were better informed about issues back in the sixties when all we had were 3 networks with a half-hour evening news program at six o'clock and local news at 10.

    Clive Thompson wrote an interesting article in last month's Wired magazine about Robert Procter's thesis, that when it comes to controversial subjects, our usual relationship to information is reversed... Ignorance increases.

    "People always assume that if someone doesn't know something, it's because they haven't paid attention or haven't yet figured it out," Proctor says. "But ignorance also comes from people literally suppressing truth&#8212;or drowning it out&#8212;or trying to make it so confusing that people stop caring about what's true and what's not."

    I found it online as well: Clive Thompson on How More Info Leads to Less Knowledge
     
  18. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Flashy, fair enough, we should not be against the wealthy spending their money. Buying property, paying property taxes, employing contractors, etc are how this money gets back into the economy.

    Of course, if you take this argument to the extreme, it's 'trickle-down' economics. I forget who said it, but "the rich can buy only so many toasters" captures the problem with this model.

    I think the point for tax policy is, do we want to subsidize multiple homes by unlimited mortgage interest tax deductions? I think some sort of limit, maybe $50,000, would exempt all but the most irrationally wealthy. Some people (i.e., rabid posters on WSJ) argue that this would reduce property values and sales. But, consider this, with a limited tax deduction mean that a CEO would forgo the house on the Vineyard? I think not. The malefactors of great wealth would still buy the house.

     
  19. bigman420

    bigman420 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    146
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, we have a socialist president. And your best wishes or spin cannot change that. It's a dangerous raod he's leading us down.
     
  20. Randll86

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    602
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Tampa (FL, US)
    Verified:
    Photo

    Yup.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted